DOCSLIB.ORG

Copyrighted Material

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

Index a-theory of time, 113 n. 13, 114, 115, 116, 118 goods of the afterlife, 473–4 n. 17, 121, 124, 183–6, 187, 191 moral argument, xii abstract objects, 11, 107, 179, 188 n. 94, 193 mystical perception and sense perception, actual infi nite; see also, kalam cosmological 273, 502–3, 504, 512, 520, 530, 531 argument defense treatment of evil, xii, 473–5 dichotomy paradoxes, 119 Anscombe, Elizabeth, xii, 344, 353, 361–2; see existence of, 106–15 also, argument from reason formalist defenders of, 105, 183 ambiguity of Lewis’ sense of “explanation”, formation of, 117–24 357–8 impossibility of, 103–6 explanation-types, 356–8, 376 infi nite regress of events and, 115–16 irrational vs. nonrational causes, 353–4 infi nite series, 118, 119, 120, 121, 145 n. 44, paradigm case argument, 354–6 195, 331 unlimited explanatory compatibilism, infi nite set, 104, 105, 109, 111, 112, 115, 120, 358–60 125, 250 Anselm, St., 1, 16, 553 see also ontological modality of, 105–6, 293 argument potential infi nite, 103–4, 112, 113, 114, 115, cosmological argument and, 101 116, 118, 144 modal argument, 572–4, 580–1 successive addition and, 117–20, 124–5 Monologion and Proslogium, 554, 558 Stadium paradoxes, 119 ontological argument, 554–65 temporal regress of events, 101, 103, 106, Anthropic Principle objection, 276–7; see also 115, 116, 117 teleological argument Tristram Shandy, 120–1 apologetics, 18, 394, 606, 627, 639; see also Zeno’s paradoxes, 119, 120, 124, 144 natural theology; worldview Adams, Marilyn, xii, 468,COPYRIGHTED 485 Aquinas, Thomas; MATERIAL see also Anselm; natural Adams, Robert, xi, xii, 295–6, 414, 479 theology agnosticism, 20–1, 28, 33, 91, 250–1, 336–7, cosmological argument and, 101, 102 501, 597, 640, 648, 650; see also theism. dualism, 301, 315 n. 5, 383 al-Ghazali, 101–2; see also kalam cosmological essence and existence, 274 argument Five Ways, 25 Albert, David, 222 Gap Problem, 93–4, 98 Albrecht, Andreas, 217 n. 13, 265–71 infi nite regress of past events, 115, 116, Alston, William; see also moral argument, 331–2 argument from religious experience scholastic axiom, 94–5 doxastic practice approach to epistemology, simplicity and perfection, 93–6 502, 528–9 The Third Way of, 582–5 664 INDEX argument from design, see teleological Calvinism and, 457 argument from the fi ne-tuning of the contemporary philosophical orthodoxy and, universe 449–52 arguments for the existence of God, xi, 1, 91; defenders vs. theodicists, 453–5, 456, 457, see also natural theology 470–6, 478, 484, 485, 492, 493, 494 argument from evolutionary naturalism divine intervention, 480–1 (AEN), 394 Euthyphro dilemma, 460, 462 argument from religious experience, 502 evil intended vs. evil foreseen, 476–8 begs the question and the ontological evidential vs. logical problem, 453–4, 472, argument, 561–2 481, 650 cumulative, vii, 19, 283, 408, 498, 510, 595, free will, and it as a defense, 451–2, 455–6, 617–20, 630–7 457, 465, 469–70, 473, 474, 476–7, 478–9, fi ne-tuning and, 202, 209 482, 483, 484, 485, 492, 493, 650 metamodel for philosophical arguments, 346 God’s permission of evil, 455, 457, 469, 470 moral argument, 392 n. 12, 472, 474, 475, 477 n. 18, 478 n. 19, parodies, 563–5 483 n. 25, 484, 486, 494 argument from consciousness (AC), xi, 283, hell, 470 n. 12, 471, 475, 487–9 294, 295–6, 297, 299, 300, 301, 302, 303, horrendous vs. nonhorrendous evil, 456, 457, 304, 307, 308–9, 315, 317, 318, 329–30, 467–8, 482, 485–9 333–4, 336, 337, 339; see also, causation, immortality, 463, 464–5, 473 n. 17 consciousness, dualism, materialism, irreducible teleological explanation and, 452 naturalism, physicalism life plan, 465, 466–7, 479, 480, 488–9 agent causation (AGC), 285, 312–13, 314–18, materialism and, 450–1, 452 319, 324–7, 333 middle knowledge and evil, 478 n. 19 arguments against consciousness as moral evil, 455–8, 469–84, 487, 490, 492–3, emergent, 322–4 577 causal necessitation, 293, 300, 302–8, 314, “mysterian” view of consciousness compared 318, 319–20, 321–2, 324, 328, 335 to, 374–5 deductive form of, 295–9 natural evil, 255, 484, 486, 487 emergent properties, 284, 285, 286, 287, pain and pleasure, 449–51, 452, 453, 455, 288–90, 292–4, 297, 299, 300, 301, 302, 458–9, 462, 464, 468–9, 471, 472 n. 15, 303, 304, 305, 307, 308, 309, 310, 311, 312, 475–6, 478 n. 19, 479, 481, 484, 488, 490, 313, 314, 315–24, 325, 335, 340 491, 492–3, 494 emergent necessitation and contingency, Plantinga’s contribution to, 453 n. 2–4, 319–22 455–7, 489–92, 470, 472–3, 478 n. 19, 484, falsifi cation of naturalism, 303–4, 452 489–92 irreducible consciousness, 282, 301, 302, 324, practical problem, 453 435, 436–7, 443, 449, 452 problem of pain, 449–50 Mackie on Locke’s thinking matter, 308–9, 315 purpose of life and perfect happiness, xii, mysterian “naturalism”, 328–30, 336–9, 374, 392, 455, 457–84, 486–94 387, 437–8 retributive justice, 469, 488–9 panpsychism, xi, 298, 315, 316, 318–19, 328, self-forming choice (SFC), 465–7, 469, 472, 329, 337 473, 475, 479–80, 481, 482, 483 n. 24, 25, prephilosophical intuitions, 15, 319, 322, 484, 486–7, 489 324–8 sin or vice, 457 n. 7, 465, 472, 484, 489, Searle’s contingent correlations and 490–2 biological naturalism, 299–300, 301–2, theoretical problem of, 453 304, 307, 309–11 via negativa theodicy, 470–1 theistic dualism and, 329, 330–6, 337 argument from miracles for the resurrection of theory acceptance and, 294–5 Jesus of Nazareth, see also argument from argument from evil, 346, 351, 352, 374, 375, religious experience; Jesus of Nazareth 453, 454, 472, 484; see also moral argument Christianity and, 593–5, 616, 618, 635, animal pain, 492–4 644–8, 650, 658 INDEX 665 collective force of the salient facts (W, D, P), inadequacy objection, 350, 375, 386–8 630–7 indeterminacy, 366, 368–9, 372, 374, 379, 401 concept of a miracle, 596, 637–8 intentionality and, 344, 345, 350, 356, conspiracy hypothesis, 619, 622, 623 363–74, 377, 378, 379, 385, 386, 387 conversion of Paul (P), 595, 615–16, 619, irrational vs. nonrational causes, 353–4 628–30, 631 logicoconceptual gap, 383, 385 death and burial of Jesus of Nazareth, 604–6, mental causation, xii, 344, 351, 363, 373, 611, 619, 621 375–9 deists and, 593, 604, 651, 653 mystery and materialism, 374–5, 387 eyewitness testimony of women at the tomb natural theology and, 347, 384 (W), 595, 597, 606, 607–8, 619, 620–2, paradigm case argument, 354–5, 356 623, 632, 638, 643 problem of interaction, 373, 382–3 goal and scope of, 594–6, 658–9 psychological relevance of logical laws, xii, hallucination hypothesis, 619, 620, 621, 344, 363, 379–81 625–6, 627, 628, 629–30, 636–7, 643 rational inference, 351–2, 353–4, 355–6, Hume against miracles, xiii, 637–44, 651–8 357–8, 360–1, 363, 363, 364–5, 368, 374, independence assumption of each line of 375, 376, 377, 378, 379, 386 argument, 631–7 reasons-explanations vs. causal explanations, martyrdom, 610, 611–15, 624, 629, 634–5 357, 358–9, 360, 376 historical argument and apologetics, 593, summary of the nature and scope, 344–6, 597, 598, 604, 627, 631, 640 n. 38, 639–40, 362–3 644–6, 648 n. 41, 650–2 transcendental impact of, xii, 344, 351, 356 objective vision theory, 626–8, 635, 637 argument from religious experience (ARE), xii, Plantinga’s Principle of Dwindling 11, 498, 501–3, 507, 509, 510, 512, 525, Probabilities (PDP), 644–50 534, 536 n. 17, 537, 547, 548–9; see also probabilistic cumulative case arguments and, argument from miracles; God; Jesus of 617–20, 630–7 Nazareth resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth, 594–6, 607, basic source of justifi cation (BSJ), 508–9, 617–20, 622, 623, 626, 628, 630, 631, 524, 533, 534, 535 632–7, 641–3 confl icting claims objection, 536–8, 539–42, testimony and transformation of disciples 547 (D), 608–15, 619–20, 622–8, 630–3, 635, contributes to cumulative case, xiii, 498 641, 645, 646 n. 39 computer skeptical hypothesis (CSH), 531–2 textual assumption about historical Jesus, critical trust approach (CTA), 508, 509, 515 597–604, 622, 630 n. 7, 524–8, 531, 541, 543, 546, 547, 548 theft hypothesis, 622–3 description of, 498 theism and, 593–5, 645–8, 649, 650, 659 disanalogy objection, 534–6, 547 argument from reason, xi–xii, 344, 346, 347–8, evidence confi rmation and sensory 351, 352–3, 354–6, 358, 360, 361–3, 374, perception, 498 n. 2, 524 375, 381, 386; see also argument from gullibilism objection, 548 consciousness; materialism; naturalism impartiality argument and, 528, 529–34, 548 Anscombe’s objections, xii, 344, 353–8, impossibility of individuation objection, 547 359–60, 361–2, 376 intracoherence, 511–12, 523–4, 527, 540, argument from computers objection, 381–2 543–54 armchair science objection, 383–4 logical gap objection, 503–4, 547 Barefoot’s four corollary argument, 378–9 mystical experience, 513, 519, 538–9, 540–3, best explanatory argument and, 355 546 Bayesian model and, 346 naturalistic explanation objection, 548 error theories, 350–1, 396 no criteria/uncheckability objection, 547–8 explanation-types and, 356–7 personal vs. impersonal ultimate reality, general problem of materialism, 344, 348–50 542–3 God of the gaps objection, 384–6 Principle of Credulity (PC), 502–3, 507–8, history of, 352–62 509 666 INDEX argument from religious experience (cont’d) Bayesian; see also explanation Principle of Critical Trust (PCT), 507, 508, Explanation, 346, 617 509–12, 525, 526, 527, 528–34, 536, 538, Factors, 618, 619 541, 548 Theorem, 618 privacy objection, 504, 506–7, 547 Bayne, Peter, 654 religious experience (RE), 498–503, 503, 505, Bentham, Jeremy; see also moral argument 506, 507, 509, 512–15, 534, 535, 536, hedonist theory of value, 421 537–8, 540, 541, 545, 548 Mill and, 423–4, 425, 432 superreliability requirement, 524, 548 Principle of Utility, 422 Swinburne’s PC, PCT, RE and ARE, 502–3, rights, 421–2, 432 507–9, 512, 528, 530 Bergmann, Michael; see also argument from theistic experience of God (TE), xiii, 498, evil; moral argument 499–501, 505, 508, 510, 512, 513, 515, “defender” response to problem of evil, 470 516–18, 519–24, 547–8 n.
Recommended publications
  • Naturalism in the Philosophies of Dewey and Zhuangzi

    Naturalism in the Philosophies of Dewey and Zhuangzi

    Naturalism in the Philosophies of Dewey and Zhuangzi: The Live Creature and the Crooked Tree by Christopher C. Kirby A dissertation submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor in Philosophy Department of Philosophy College of Arts and Sciences University of South Florida Co-Major Professor: John P. Anton Ph.D. Co-Major Professor: Martin Schönfeld Ph.D. Sidney Axinn Ph.D. Alexander Levine Ph.D. Date of Approval: December 12, 2008 Keywords: Pragmatism, Daoism, Metaphysics, Epistemology, Ethics © Copyright 2008 Christopher C. Kirby Dedication For P.J. – “Nature speaks louder than the call from the minaret.” (Inayat Khan, Bowl of Saki) Table of Contents List of Abbreviations ................................................................................................. ii Abstract ..................................................................................................................... iii Preface: West Meets East........................................................................................... 1 Dewey’s Encounter with China ............................................................................. 6 Chapter One: What is Naturalism? .......................................................................... 15 Naturalism and the Organic Point of View .......................................................... 16 Nature and the Language of Experience .............................................................. 22 Naturalistic Strategies in Philosophy ..................................................................
  • 0 It Comes from the Outside

    0 It Comes from the Outside

    How valid are visions? 0 They happen to an individual person 0 It comes from the outside 0 It isn't usually looked for by the person receiving it 0 A vision is startling and memorable 0 The "receiver" will want to tell others about it 0 Visions are hard to put into words 0 They only have meaning if they convey a deeper message 0 Visions could be the result of an overactive imagination - or drug or alcohol induced Find an example of a religious vision and explain what the vision was and why it is important Assessment question. "Visions are only important for the person who receives them." Do you agree? Give reasons for your answer, showing that you have thought about more than one point of view. I 25 Dreams are a series of thoughts, images and sensations occurring in a person's mind during sleep. Many people forget their dreams. However there are some dreams which can make a deep impression on the person dreaming and, as with visions, they might give the dreamer new insights into reality and into God. Such dreams can give new direction to a person's life. For these dreams to be valid, they have to be free from any artificial stimulus, e.g. drugs! You are going to research 2 dreams and explain their meaning by answering the following questions: hlow valid are dreams? Name of Jacob's dream at Bethel Pharaoh's dream the dream Explain this dream How did God use this dream What affect did it have on the person 26 0 Dreams happen when a person is asleep 0 Most people forget their dreams but some leave a deep impression 0 Dreams might give new insights into reality and into God 0 People don't have control over their dreams 0 For dreams to be valid they have to be free from artificial stimulus Special Revelation: Enlightenment! Obiectives: Understand how enlightenment can help a believer deal with life and its pressures Evaluate the importance of enlightenment for believers and their faith ^ Task 1: Enlightenment is.
  • Summary the Purpose of the Dissertation Is to Present The

    Summary the Purpose of the Dissertation Is to Present The

    Summary The purpose of the dissertation is to present the abductive argument of Richard Swinburne in favor of theism. Richard Swinburne was born on December 26, 1934. He is a British philosopher, a retired professor of the University of Oxford, where he held the position of Nolloth Professor of the Philosophy of the Christian Religion (Oriel College). He has devoted all his philosophical activity to the justification of the Christian faith – he has intended to show that it is rational to believe in God. The main thesis of the dissertation is that Swinburne’s concept of theism does not remain consistent with the assumption that God is perfectly good. This inconsistence comes from the fact that human experience of suffering cannot be reconciled with God’s perfect goodness, especially assuming that God allows or causes the suffering. The structure of the work corresponds to the logical construction of Swinburne’s line of reasoning. The first chapter – Methodology of Philosophy – describes the main philosophical methods Swinburne uses in presenting his arguments. It is divided into two parts: the first one (Theory of Explanation) primarily presents the Swinburne’s construction of the concept of coherence, which is a prerequisite for considering any theory as probable or true. Moreover, this part discusses Swinburne’s dual explanatory theory, according to which two types of explanation are possible: (1) scientific, based on the analysis of unintentional causation, and (2) personal, based on the analysis of intentional causation. At the same time, Swinburne tries to show that it is not possible to explain certain phenomena in the world only by means of scientific explanation.
  • The Argument from Miracles: a Cumulative Case for the Resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth

    The Argument from Miracles: a Cumulative Case for the Resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth

    The Argument from Miracles: A Cumulative Case for the Resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth Introduction It is a curiosity of the history of ideas that the argument from miracles is today better known as the object of a famous attack than as a piece of reasoning in its own right. It was not always so. From Paul’s defense before Agrippa to the polemics of the orthodox against the deists at the heart of the Enlightenment, the argument from miracles was central to the discussion of the reasonableness of Christian belief, often supplemented by other considerations but rarely omitted by any responsible writer. But in the contemporary literature on the philosophy of religion it is not at all uncommon to find entire works that mention the positive argument from miracles only in passing or ignore it altogether. Part of the explanation for this dramatic change in emphasis is a shift that has taken place in the conception of philosophy and, in consequence, in the conception of the project of natural theology. What makes an argument distinctively philosophical under the new rubric is that it is substantially a priori, relying at most on facts that are common knowledge. This is not to say that such arguments must be crude. The level of technical sophistication required to work through some contemporary versions of the cosmological and teleological arguments is daunting. But their factual premises are not numerous and are often commonplaces that an educated nonspecialist can readily grasp – that something exists, that the universe had a beginning in time, that life as we know it could flourish only in an environment very much like our own, that some things that are not human artifacts have an appearance of having been designed.
  • NEUROCENTRISM Feld, Meca, & Sauvigné, in Press)

    NEUROCENTRISM Feld, Meca, & Sauvigné, in Press)

    NEUROCENTRISM feld, Meca, & Sauvigné, in press). In its Neurocentrism: Implications for Psychotherapy most extreme form, neurocentrism regards Practice and Research the CNS as essentially the only adequate level of analysis for conceptualizing and treating psychological phenomena. Scott O. Lilienfeld, Emory University The early 21st century is also awash in talk of psychological conditions as “brain Seth J. Schwartz and Alan Meca, University of Miami disorders.” For example, in a 2013 TEDx talk, Thomas Insel, director of the National Katheryn C. Sauvigné, Georgia State University Institute of Mental Health (NIMH), argued Sally Satel, American Enterprise Institute that “what we need conceptually to make progress here is to rethink these disorders [mental disorders] as brain disorders” (Insel, 2013; see also Insel & Cuthbert, 1989, SAMUEL GUZE, then one of the damental level of analysis—the brain. IN 2015). doyens of American psychiatry, laid down Hence, it is only at this level, Guze main- But is neurocentrism helpful in clarify- the gauntlet to his academic colleagues in a tained, that research will ultimately bear ing our thinking about the causes and provocative article, entitled “Biological fruit in understanding, treating, and pre- treatment of mental disorders? What are its Psychiatry: Is There Any Other Kind?”, venting mental afflictions. implications for psychotherapy practice published in a prestigious medical journal. Over a quarter of a century later, we find and research? On the opening page, Guze answered his ourselves confronting the same question own question with a resounding “no”: raised by Guze, but with respect to psy- The Long Swing of the Pendulum “There can be no such thing as a psychiatry chology.
  • THE QUESTION of GOD: an Introduction and Sourcebook

    THE QUESTION of GOD: an Introduction and Sourcebook

    THE QUESTION OF GOD This important new text by a well-known author provides a lively and approachable introduction to the six great arguments for the existence of God. Requiring no specialist knowledge of philosophy, an important feature of The Question of God is the inclusion of a wealth of primary sources drawn from both classic and contemporary texts. With its combination of critical analysis and extensive extracts, this book will be particularly attractive to students and teachers of philosophy, religious studies and theology, at school or university level, who are looking for a text that offers a detailed and authoritative account of these famous arguments. • The Ontological Argument (sources: Anselm, Haight, Descartes, Kant, Findlay, Malcolm, Hick) • The Cosmological Argument (sources: Aquinas, Taylor, Hume, Kant) • The Argument from Design (sources: Paley, Hume, Darwin, Dawkins, Ward) • The Argument from Miracles (sources: Hume, Hambourger, Coleman, Flew, Swinburne, Diamond) • The Moral Argument (sources: Plato, Lewis, Kant, Rachels, Martin, Nielsen) • The Pragmatic Argument (sources: Pascal, Gracely, Stich, Penelhum, James, Moore). This user-friendly books also offers: • Revision questions to aid comprehension • Key reading for each chapter and an extensive bibliography • Illustrated biographies of key thinkers and their works • Marginal notes and summaries of arguments. Dr Michael Palmer was formerly a Teaching Fellow at McMaster University and Humbodlt Fellow at Marburg University. He has also taught at Marlborough College and Bristol University, and was for many years Head of the Department of Religion and Philosophy at The Manchester Grammar School. A widely read author, his Moral Problems (1991) has already established itself as a core text in schools and colleges.
  • University of Pennsylvania Press

    University of Pennsylvania Press

    University of Pennsylvania Press Newtonian Science, Miracles, and the Laws of Nature Author(s): Peter Harrison Source: Journal of the History of Ideas, Vol. 56, No. 4 (Oct., 1995), pp. 531-553 Published by: University of Pennsylvania Press Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2709991 Accessed: 30-10-2015 01:34 UTC Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/page/ info/about/policies/terms.jsp JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected]. University of Pennsylvania Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Journal of the History of Ideas. http://www.jstor.org This content downloaded from 130.102.42.98 on Fri, 30 Oct 2015 01:34:15 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions NewtonianScience, Miracles, andthe Laws ofNature PeterHarrison Introduction "Newton,"writes Richard Westfall, "both believed in and did not believe in miracles."It can onlybe concluded,Westfall continues, that the greatscientist, unwilling to relinquishhis beliefin a providentialand inter- posingDeity, "abandoned himself to ambiguitiesand inconsistencies,which gave theappearance of divine participation in nature,but not the substance."' Newton'sapparent ambivalence
  • Religious Education Year 11 Themes Homework Pack

    Religious Education Year 11 Themes Homework Pack

    f?^. ^ Religious Education Year 11 Themes Homework Pack 1 AQA Religious Studies homework for Paper 2 Themes > The Existence of God and Revelation > Religion and Life Each section is worth 24 marks + 3 SPaG Each section contains five questions and all must be answered 0.1=1 mark take 1 minute 02=2 marks take 2 minutes Q3 = 4 marks take 4 minutes Q4 = 5 marks take 5 minutes Q5 = 12 marks take 12 minutes Use additional minutes for planning and checking All questions are knowledge based and question 5 requires evaluation. Homework Programme Exam Questions found at the back of the booklet Answer different questions each week. Tick of those completed. Homework I Existence of God and Revelation hlomework Religion and Life Week One 2x 2m lx4m lx4m (CBS), lx5m, Week Seven 2x 2m lx4m lx4m (CBS), lx5m, 2xl2m 2xl2m Week Two 2x 2m lx4m lx4m (CBS), lx5m, Week Eight 2x 2m lx4m lx4m (CBS), lx5m, 2xl2m 2xl2m Week Three 2x 2m lx4m lx4m (CBS), lx5m, Week Nine 2x 2m lx4m lx4m (CBS), lx5m, 2xl2m 2xl2m Week Four 2x2m lx4m lx4m (CBS), lx5m, Week Ten 2x 2m lx4m lx4m (CBS), lx5m, 2xl2m 2xl2m Week Five 2x 2m lx4m lx4m (CBS), lx5m, Week Eleven 2x 2m lx4m lx4m (CBS), lx5m, 2xl2m 2xl2m Week Six 2x 2m lx4m lx4m (CBS), lx5m, Week Twelve 2x 2m lx4m lx4m (CBS), lx5m, 2xl2m 2xl2m KEY: m=marks CBS = contemporary British society Use your flashcards for quotes. Find existence of God quotes and other reference to scripture: https://quizlet.com/Rb/405393776/the-existence-Qf-god-and-revelation-kev-Quotes-aQa-Rcse-flash- cards/ 2 Theme C: The existence of God and revelation Students should study religious teachings, and religious and philosophical arguments, relating to the issues that follow, and their impact and influence in the modern world.
  • Miracles and the Natural Order in Nahmanides*

    Miracles and the Natural Order in Nahmanides*

    Miracles and the Natural Order in Nahmanides* MMIRACLESIRACLES ANDAND THETHE NATURALNATURAL ORDERORDER IINN NNAHMANIDESAHMANIDES* From: Rabbi Moses Nahmanides (Ramban): Explorations in his Religious and Literary Virtuosity, ed. by Isadore Twersky (Harvard University Press: Cambridge, Mass., 1983), pp. 107-128. The centrality of miracles in Nahmanides’ theology cannot escape the attention of even the most casual observer, and his doctrine of the hidden miracle exercised a particularly profound and abiding influence on subsequent Jewish thought. Nevertheless, his repeated emphasis on the miraculous—and particularly the unrestrained rhetoric of a few key passages—has served to obscure and distort his true position, which was far more moderate, nuanced and complex than both medieval and modern scholars have been led to believe. I To Nahmanides, miracles serve as the ultimate validation of all three central dogmas of Judaism: creation ex nihilo, divine knowledge, and providence (hiddush, yedi‘ah, hashgahah).1 In establishing the relationship between miracles and his first dogma, Nahmanides applies a philosophical argument in a particularly striking way. “According to the believer in the eternity of the world,” he writes, “if God wished to shorten the wing of * Some of the issues analyzed in this article were discussed in a more rudimentary form in chapters one, three, and four of my master’s essay, “Nahmanides’ Attitude Toward Secular Learning and its Bearing upon his Stance in the Maimonidean Controversy” (Columbia University, 1965), which was directed by Prof. Gerson D. Cohen. 1 Torat HaShem Temimah (henceforth THT), in Kitvei Ramban, ed. by Ch. Chavel I (Jerusalem, 1963), p. 150. On Nahmanides’ dogmas and their connection with miracles, see S.
  • GCSE Revision the Existence of God and Revelation Revision Guide

    GCSE Revision the Existence of God and Revelation Revision Guide

    Use the following checklist to make sure you have revised everything. Philosophical arguments for and against the existence of God √ The Design argument including its strengths and weaknesses. The First Cause argument including its strengths and weaknesses The argument from miracles including its strengths and weaknesses and one example of a miracle. Evil and suffering as an argument against the existence of God. Arguments based on science against the existence of God. The nature of the divine and revelation Special revelation as a source of knowledge about the divine (God gods or ultimate reality) including visions and one example of a vision. Enlightenment as a source of knowledge about the divine. General revelation: nature and scripture as a way of understanding the divine. Different ideas about the divine that come from these sources: - omnipotent and omniscient - personal and impersonal - immanent and transcendent. The value of general and special revelation and enlightenment as sources of knowledge about the divine including: - the problems of different ideas about the divine arising from these experiences - alternative explanations for the experiences and the possibility that the people who claimed to have them were lying or mistaken Agnostic: Belief that there is insufficient evidence to say whether God exists or not. All-compassionate: Characteristic of God; all-loving, omnibenevolent. All-merciful: Characteristic of God; always forgiving and never vindictive. Atheism: Belief that there is no God. Benevolent: Characteristic of God; all-loving. Conscience: Sense of right and wrong; seen as the voice of God within our mind by many religious believers. Design argument: Also known as teleological argument.
  • Craig, William Lane and Mcgrew, Timothy and Lydia

    Craig, William Lane and Mcgrew, Timothy and Lydia

    11 The Argument from Miracles: A Cumulative Case for the Resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth TIMOTHY MCGREW AND LYDIA MCGREW Introduction It is a curiosity of the history of ideas that the argument from miracles is today better known as the object of a famous attack than as a piece of reasoning in its own right. It was not always so. From Paul’s defense before Agrippa to the polemics of the orthodox against the deists at the heart of the Enlightenment, the argument from miracles was central to the discussion of the reasonableness of Christian belief, often supplemented by other con- siderations but rarely omitted by any responsible writer. But in the contemporary literature on the philosophy of religion it is not at all uncommon to fi nd entire works that mention the positive argument from miracles only in passing or ignore it altogether. Part of the explanation for this dramatic change in emphasis is a shift that has taken place in the conception of philosophy and, in consequence, in the conception of the project of natural theology. What makes an argument distinctively philosophical under the new rubric is that it is substantially a priori, relying at most on facts that are common knowl- edge. This is not to say that such arguments must be crude. The level of technical sophis- tication required to work through some contemporary versions of the cosmological and teleological arguments is daunting. But their factual premises are not numerous and are often commonplaces that an educated nonspecialist can readily grasp – that something exists, that the universe had a beginning in time, that life as we know it could fl ourish only in an environment very much like our own, that some things that are not human artifacts have an appearance of having been designed.
  • American Psychologist

    American Psychologist

    American Psychologist Public Skepticism of Psychology: Why Many People Perceive the Study of Human Behavior as Unscientific Scott O. Lilienfeld Online First Publication, June 13, 2011. doi: 10.1037/a0023963 CITATION Lilienfeld, S. O. (2011, June 13). Public Skepticism of Psychology: Why Many People Perceive the Study of Human Behavior as Unscientific. American Psychologist. Advance online publication. doi: 10.1037/a0023963 Public Skepticism of Psychology Why Many People Perceive the Study of Human Behavior as Unscientific Scott O. Lilienfeld Emory University Data indicate that large percentages of the general public and allied trends (see Redding & O’Donohue, 2009, and regard psychology’s scientific status with considerable Tierney, 2011, for recent discussions) have retarded the skepticism. I examine 6 criticisms commonly directed at the growth of scientific psychology. Others (e.g., Dawes, 1994; scientific basis of psychology (e.g., psychology is merely Lilienfeld, Lynn, & Lohr, 2003; Thyer & Pignotti, in press) common sense, psychology does not use scientific methods, have assailed the scientific status of large swaths of clinical psychology is not useful to society) and offer 6 rebuttals. I psychology, counseling psychology, and allied mental then address 8 potential sources of public skepticism to- health disciplines, contending that these fields have been ward psychology and argue that although some of these overly permissive of poorly supported practices. Still oth- sources reflect cognitive errors (e.g., hindsight bias) or ers (e.g., S. Koch, 1969; Meehl, 1978) have bemoaned the misunderstandings of psychological science (e.g., failure to at times painfully slow pace of progress of psychology, distinguish basic from applied research), others (e.g., psy- especially in the “softer” domains of social, personality, chology’s failure to police itself, psychology’s problematic clinical, and counseling psychology.